More Like This

Preview

Kuryłowicz’s first ‘law’ states that bipartite markers replace isofunctional morphemes consisting of only one of these elements In classical Latin, the simultaneous infectum-stem forms synthetic passives. The anterior perfectum-stem forms analytic passives: the to-participle is combined with the copula, the copula being in the infectum because the participle indicates anteriority. The Romance passive is entirely periphrastic. In Italian, the present is replaced by sono amato (〈 amatus sum, originally perfect); the perfect goes back to amatus fui. This passive obeys Kuryłowicz’s first ‘law’:...

Kuryłowicz’s first ‘law’ states that bipartite markers replace isofunctional morphemes consisting of only one of these elements In classical Latin, the simultaneous infectum-stem forms synthetic passives. The anterior perfectum-stem forms analytic passives: the to-participle is combined with the copula, the copula being in the infectum because the participle indicates anteriority. The Romance passive is entirely periphrastic. In Italian, the present is replaced by sono amato (〈 amatus sum, originally perfect); the perfect goes back to amatus fui. This passive obeys Kuryłowicz’s first ‘law’: amatus fui marks anteriority twice, on the participle and the copula. The pluperfect forms were replaced first. Initially amatus fueram is functionally distinct from amatus eram. But because of its greater clarity, amatus fueram begins to be used as a normal pluperfect. This is the trigger for a chain shift affecting the perfect, then the imperfect, and at last the present.